Summary
The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (The Forum) has been in existence since January 1998, when non-governmental organisations working in the field of human rights joined together to provide legal and psychosocial assistance to the victims of the food riots of January 1998. The International Liaison Office (IntLO) of the Forum started operations in January 2002 as an initiative by one of its member organisations – Amani Trust. The IntLO provides support services, including being a security, to the headquarters and is the main focal point for lobbying at the international level.
The core liaison activities of the IntLO include being a security for materials and a possible refuge for members in the headquarters in a “worst case” scenario. Also in the event of reports found to be too controversial to be launched in Zimbabwe, the office can be organizing launches internationally. During 2004 non of these have been necessary. However, during the second half of the year the whole focus of the work was shifted towards the long anticipated NGO legislation, which in August was brought before the Zimbabwean Parliament. The work had to be focused towards strategies in the case of the Forum’s work in the Harare head office becoming illegal. Pro bono lawyers were secured who gave advice on the different proposals derived off different scenarios that the new legislation could entail, to ensure that the operations in London stayed within the law, and to secure operations in any emergency situation.
Even if the main work of the IntLO in 2004 was around the NGO Bill, the international lobbying efforts on other aspects of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe continued during the year along the lines of previous years. IntLO has created an email list of persons and organizations that are receiving reports on a regular basis. At the end of the year there were 754 addresses on the list. During the year particular efforts were made to increase the cooperation with old and potential partners among NGOs. Around 50 European based organizations were part of this network of main partners being invited to international coordination meetings at the end of 2004. Information and decisions from these meetings are also passed on to networks based in the SADC region and North America.
The last lobbying activity during the year was direct participation in inter governmental meetings, to directly inform and lobby where the Zimbabwean Government previously had been the only Zimbabwean actor presenting the situation in Zimbabwe. This work focused on three main avenues: The African Union, in particular its African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the European Union (EU), in particular through its cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and the UN.
LONDON July 2005,
Tor-Hugne Olsen, Coordinator, International Liaison Office
1. Background
1. The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (The Forum) has been in existence since January 1998, when non-governmental organisations working in the field of human rights joined together to provide legal and psychosocial assistance to the victims of the food riots of January 1998. The Forum, now comprised of 17 member organizations, has expanded its objectives to assist victims of organised violence. The Forum operates a Research Unit, which produces monthly, periodic reports on political violence, as well as special editions reports on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, and a Public Interest Unit, which provides pro-bono legal services to its clients. These operations are carried out from Harare, the head office of the Forum.
2. The International Liaison Office (IntLO) of the Forum started operations in January 2002 as an initiative by one of its member organisations – Amani Trust, and their international partner Redress. From late 2002, Article 19 took over from Redress as the Forum’s UK based partner organisation.
3. The IntLO provides support services, including being a security, to the headquarters and is the main focal point for lobbying at the international level. (For previous activities of the IntLO see the 2002 and 2003 annual reports available at the Forum website1).
2. Security activities
2.1 The core liaison activities of the IntLO include being a security for materials and a possible refuge for members in the headquarters in a “worst case” scenario. Also in the event of reports found to be too controversial to be launched in Zimbabwe, the office can be organizing launches internationally. During 2004 non of these have been necessary.
2.2 The security includes being a storage point for potentially controversial documentation. Backups of the Forum’s databases were brought to London on 2 occasions during 2004.
2.3 During the first half of the year other security related measures were not deemed necessary.
2.4 However, during the second half of the year the whole focus of the work was shifted towards the long anticipated NGO legislation, which in August was brought before the Zimbabwean Parliament. The proposed NGO Bill was going to outlaw all organizations that were not registered in terms of the Private and Voluntary Organizations Act, which according to estimates by the National Association of Non Governmental Organizations (NANGO) could include more than 600 NGOs and community based organizations, including a majority of the member organizations of the Forum and the Forum itself.
The Bill also set out to outlaw all activities that were termed to be governance matters. Governance matters were defined to include matters related to promotion and protection of human rights. Foreign funding would be prohibited and assets of the organizations that failed to comply with the new legislation would be confiscated.
2.5 IntLO used most of its time and energies to alert the international community and coordinate protests internationally, as well as look at possible measures necessary to secure the work of the Forum locally as well as at IntLO in the event of the Bill being passed into law.
2.6 The work had to be focused towards strategies in the case of the Forum’s work in the Harare head office becoming illegal. Pro bono lawyers were secured who gave advice on the different proposals derived off different scenarios that the new legislation could entail, to ensure that the operations in London stayed within the law, and to secure operations in any emergency situation.
2.7 The landlord was also approached about the situation to look at possibilities of securing larger offices should that be necessary.
3. Core liaison activities
3.1 Even if the main work of the IntLO in 2004 was around the NGO Bill, the international lobbying efforts on other aspects of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe continued during the year along the lines of previous years.
3.2 The main international liaison work is information distribution through email. The distribution of Forum reports, mainly from the Forum’s research unit, but also from the member organizations, has been the main activity. IntLO has created an email list of persons and organizations that are receiving reports on a regular basis. At the end of the year there were 754 addresses on the list. These included mainly addresses outside of Zimbabwe, since distribution within Zimbabwe is from headquarters. During the year efforts were made to try to be more targeted in identifying institutions and persons that should get these reports. The address list at the end of the year included around 100 government officials and other decision makers, around 350 NGO addresses, around 100 journalists and around 200 others including Zimbabweans in the Diaspora. During 2004 15 mailings were sent to this e-mail list. These mailings included 17 own reports / statements, 11 member organization reports / statements and 33 reports / statements from other sources of relevance to the human rights situation in Zimbabwe.
The IntLO’s increased targeting seems to be having the desired effect in that we can see more mention of our reports by journalists and politicians. Particularly the figures from the political violence reports are frequently used when referring to Zimbabwe, the most prominent being the mention by Prime Minister Blair during the Zimbabwe debate in the House of Commons on 9.12.20032.
3.3 During the year particular efforts were made to increase the cooperation with old and potential partners among NGOs. As the rumours about a new NGO legislation intensified during 2003, the IntLO identified international non-governmental organizations as main partners through which lobbying of national governments and international organizations could be made. During 2004 IntLO hosted a network of “Zimbabwe desk officers” of the international organizations that work on or in Zimbabwe. This group met 10 times during the year at the IntLO offices. The last of these meetings on 21 December was an open “Christmas Party”, to which also the other tenants in Development House were invited. During the meetings there was always a Zimbabwean visitor addressing and updating the participants, or one of the organizations present gave a report back if they had recently visited Zimbabwe. For example at the Christmas Party the video “No War in Zimbabwe” was shown, and an update on the situation in Zimbabwe was given by the Human Rights Watch researcher on Zimbabwe, Tiseke Kasambala, who had just returned from the country.
The main objective of this cooperation is to coordinate the work and strategies of these organizations, particularly in relation to inter governmental meetings, as well as informing about the activities of the Forum’s head office and the member organizations. Around 50 European based organizations were part of this network of main partners being invited to international coordination meetings at the end of 2004. Information and decisions from these meetings are also passed on to networks based in the SADC region and North America.
3.4 These “International Organizations Meetings” proved very valuable in the work of the Forum, and has brought valuable information to IntLO that has been passed on to the head quarters in Harare and the member organizations. For example, the IntLO’s current involvement with AU’s ECOSOCC (see points 4.1.2, 4.1.8 and 4.1.9) is a direct result of discussions in this group. These meetings have also put the work of the Forum firmly in the attention of international NGOs and have made the work of the Forum better known. This has led to the Forum being invited to conferences and as speakers to events making the situation in Zimbabwe highlighted where this would otherwise not necessarily have been the case.
3.5 IntLO also participated actively in the Zimbabwe Action Network (ZAN), a network of UK organizations, hosted by the British Trade Union Congress, co-chaired by the Britain Zimbabwe Society, Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) and the Commonwealth Trade Union Congress (CTUC). However following the ILO decision in June 2004 to discontinue CTUC by the end of the year, and major staff changes at ACTSA, ZAN also decided to decrease their activities. This increased the need for and importance of IntLO’s International Organizations Meetings and IntLO decided to invite those of the partners from ZAN who were interested to these meetings even if those whose activities and work were not mainly focused on human rights.
3.6 The last lobbying activity during the year was direct participation in inter governmental meetings, to directly inform and lobby where the Zimbabwean Government previously had been the only Zimbabwean actor presenting the situation in Zimbabwe.
3.7 This work focused on three main avenues: The African Union, in particular its African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the European Union (EU), in particular through its cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and the UN (See chapter 4 below).
4. Intergovernmental Work
4.1 The African Union (AU), including The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)
4.1.1 The African Union (AU) was the main focus of the international lobbying of the IntLO in 2004. The reason for this was an attempt to change the lack of attention of the human rights violations in Zimbabwe at the regional, African level. At the international arena IntLO and other civil society initiatives have had some successes in the previous years, particularly towards institutions such as the Commonwealth and the EU. However, on the African continent there had been little opposition to and protest against the human rights violations in Zimbabwe. However, during 2004 the Forum achieved major successes in the work on the African continent.
4.1.2 Of the AU bodies the IntLO continued to focus on the work of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). During the period under review, the Forum, in addition, managed to penetrate the AU work involving direct cooperation between the AU Commission and civil society, through the Conference on Stability, Security and Development in Africa (CSSDA), and related meetings, which saw the Forum being added onto the invitation list for the launch of AU’s Economic, Cultural and Social Council (ECOSOCC) scheduled to take place in early 2005. The potential impact on being part of this network for informing on the situation in Zimbabwe and getting direct access to the African Union Commission cannot be overestimated.
4.1.3 Still, the main successes of the Forum were achieved in the cooperation and work with the ACHPR. At the beginning of 2002 the Forum submitted a Communication on the situation in Zimbabwe focusing on torture and extrajudicial executions to the ACHPR3. Lengthy deliberations on admissibility were concluded in November 2003 when the ACHPR deemed this Communication admissible. In 2004 the focus was on getting a conclusion on this Communication and work was finalized on the merits of the Communication. The Forum presented its findings on the merits of the Communication and the Government presented theirs, before the ACHPR during the 35th Session in Banjul in May 2004. The presentation was followed up with written submissions.
The ACHPR will hopefully finalize its deliberations on the Communication during 2005. This is the first time a Communication on Zimbabwe has been heard by the ACHPR.
This communication has generated an interest in Zimbabwe on this mechanism and as at the end of 2004; there were 5 new communications that had been filed with the ACHPR, one by the Forum on wrongful deaths4 and 4 by member organizations, in an effort to fight impunity and to hold the Zimbabwean government accountable for its actions.
4.1.4 The other main focus of IntLO’s lobbying efforts towards the ACHPR during 2004 was to get the June 2002 ACHPR mission to Zimbabwe report released. The Fact Finding Mission Report is very important in the fight for the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe. This is not only because this is the first report by a pan-African organ, but also because the ACHPR in this report noted that the issues to be addressed were those relating to human rights and not the land reform process per se. This realization by the ACHPR was one of the results of the continued lobby effort of the IntLO as well as other member organizations of the Forum.
During the AU Assembly of Heads of States and Governments in Addis Ababa in July, the ACHPR presented its 17th Activity Report (which in reality is its annual report) covering the period July 2003 to July 2004, with the adopted findings and recommendations of its June 2002 Zimbabwe mission as an annexure. The Zimbabwean foreign minister managed to have the activity report delayed on claims that the Zimbabwean Government had not been give time to respond to the recommendations. In spite of ACHPR assurances that this was not the case, the Government was given time to respond and the adoption of the activity report was postponed to the next AU Assembly scheduled for January 2005, in Abuja, Nigeria.
4.1.5 At the ACHPR’s 36th Session in Dakar in November / December 2004, the Government of Zimbabwe informed that they on 15 November had submitted a response to the mission report and therefore wanted the report withdrawn or substantially changed. This was rejected by the ACHPR, which however promised that the comments from the Government would be added to the 17th Activity Report, when it was presented to the AU Assembly. IntLO will continue its lobby efforts to get the complete report released.
4.1.6 Because of the Forum’s involvement with the ACHPR, dialogue with the ACHPR’s Special Rapporteur on Prison Conditions and conditions in places of detentions, Commissioner Vera Chirwa, was established. She approached the Forum in order to have cooperation around a visit to the country in late 2003. However, the difficult situation between the ACHPR and the Government of Zimbabwe during 2004 made any visit impossible. If the ACHPR Mission report on Zimbabwe is released in early 2005, tensions should ease and the possibility of a visit will be revisited if deemed useful by the ACHPR.
4.1.7 Lastly, an unexpected result of the participation in the ACHPR was the dialogue that was developed with the Zimbabwe Government delegation during the Session meetings. During the sessions in 2004 the delegation among other things discussed informally the possibility of hosting a session of the ACHPR in Zimbabwe.
4.1.8 The Forum was present with large delegations at both of the ACHPR Sessions during 2004. At the 35th Session in Banjul in May delegates included Godfrey Mupanga from head office and the member organizations were represented through Abel Chikomo, MMPZ. The IntLO was represented by Blessing Chimhini. Wilbert Mandinde from MISA-Zimbabwe and Mathew Takaona of Zimbabwe Union of Journalists (ZUJ) were also associated with the Forum delegation.
At the 36th Session in Dakar in November / December HQ was represented by Tafadzwa Muvingi, project lawyer and board member Arnold Tsunga. Otto Saki, ZLHR, Primrose Matambanadzo, MMPZ and Blessing Chimhini, SAHRIT, represented member organizations while the IntLO was represented by Tor-Hugne Olsen. In addition Wilbert Mandinde, MISA-Zimbabwe and Jacob Mafume from NANGO were associated with the delegation.
4.1.9 The AU has since 2001 organized civil society consultations. In the third of these consultations in Addis Ababa in July 2004 the Forum managed to get a place through one of its international NGO partners – Interights. This invitation came as a direct result of the collaboration with other NGOs organized by IntLO. As a result of the participation in this AU – African civil society consultation and consequent lobbying efforts, IntLO was able to influence decisions and got invited to such important meetings as the formation of an AU Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), penciled for the first quarter of 2005. During the consultation process in July the statues and launching of ECOSOCC were debated and final conclusions prepared for presentation to the AU Assembly. The Forum representative, Godfrey Mupanga, noted this development as very positive, but also noted with concern that very few organizations and other civil society actors working on good governance and traditional human rights issues were involved.
4.1.9 In July 2004 the AU Assembly adopted the proposed statutes of the ECOSOCC, and made provisions for an interim ECOSOCC to be launched in 2005. IntLO will follow this process closely.
4.2 The EU
4.2.1 The work with the European Union had lower priority in 2004, and mainly focused on the EU cooperation with African countries, mainly through the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and the EU, where Zimbabwe has featured as an issue of major conflict in the past.
4.2.2 During 2004 the Forum sent delegations to both Sessions of the JPA with an ambition of keeping Zimbabwe on the informal agenda of the Assembly. The delegation to the 7th Session in Addis Ababa was led by the head of the research unit at HQ, Primrose Matambanadzo, with additional delegates being Abel Chikomo from MMPZ and Tawanda Hondora from the Crisis Coalition.
To the 8th Session in The Hague the Forum delegation was again headed by Primrose Matambanadzo, with Emilia Machawa from ZWLA representing member organizations, and Abel Chikomo and Tor-Hugne Olsen representing IntLO.
4.2.3 At the 7th Session there were problems with accreditation as well as with participation in ACP internal meetings, both having thought to be linked with attitudes of the Zimbabwean delegation. No major Zimbabwe discussions were organized, and the delegation mainly did lobbying work through distribution of reports to interested delegations.
4.2.4 At the 8th session IntLO organized a breakfast meeting on the situation in Zimbabwe together with Zimbabwe Watch, a coalition of Dutch NGOs working on Zimbabwe. The meeting featured the video “No War in Zimbabwe” on the plight of Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa and heard interventions by Matambanadzo and Chikomo.
4.2.5 The attendance at the meeting was poor, and outside the Zimbabwean delegation the only ACP delegates were from Cameroon’s opposition party. These were however interesting in that they clearly sympathized and said that the Zimbabwean situation was similar to that in their own and other countries and it was good to see local civil society activists highlight such situations. Also on the European side the attendance was poor consisting mainly of NGO representatives. When the JPA delegations arrived later in the morning the Forum delegation was told by several of the ACP delegations that they had heard from the Zimbabwean delegation that the meeting had been cancelled. On the European side many MEPs expressed that they had not seen invitations. This has given important lessons for future fringe meetings.
4.2.6 Other lobby work on the EU was not deemed necessary since much of what the EU was doing was in line with what was asked for by the Forum and other civil society groups in Zimbabwe. Since the EU introduced travel bans and other targeted sanctions in February 2002, the EU has consistently supported civil society in trying to enhance human rights and democracy in the country. IntLO was therefore caught by surprise when it was obvious that there was internal discussion around these travel bans when they were up for renewal. IntLO’s contacts recommended increased lobbying ahead of the final decision, which was undertaken. This lobbying did not take any stand on the travel bans as such, but emphasized that the situation in Zimbabwe had not changed for the better during the year under review.
4.2.7 In a Council decision 19 February 20045 the EU agreed to support an extension of the travel bans and other targeted sanctions against the Zimbabwean regime. IntLO will, after this experience, attempt to increase monitoring the situation in the EU and to establish more regular contacts with EU countries less informed on Zimbabwe during 2005.
4.3 The United Nations
4.3.1 The work with the UN was the least successful of the international lobby work of the IntLO during 2004. The main aim of this work was to get the UN to make a statement or a resolution condemning the situation in Zimbabwe.
4.3.2 The first attempt to get such a resolution was made during the first quarter of 2004 at the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The EU countries decided, as in the previous two sessions of the CHR, to propose a resolution on Zimbabwe.
4.3.3 The Forum sent a five-person delegation dispersed in two groups to the Commission’s 60th Session in March and April 2004 to lobby for support of this resolution. The Forum’s delegation was headed by board member Arnold Tsunga and consisted in addition of Abel Chikomo, MMPZ, Fadzai Muparutsa, GALZ, and Fidelis Mudimu, Amani Trust representing member organizations and Tor-Hugne Olsen, IntLO.
4.3.4 IntLO organized a meeting for delegates and observers to the CHR on the situation in Zimbabwe on April 1st, 2004. The meeting was held in cooperation with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and other of IntLO’s NGO partners, including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT). The meeting was addressed by Tsunga, Mudimu and Chikomo and led to a fierce debate, in which the Zimbabwean Geneva Mission representatives were very active.
4.3.5 Our efforts did not breed any success. The African group in the CHR proposed a “no action motion” on all resolutions on African countries that did not have an African co-sponsor, and the no action motion on Zimbabwe carried by a slim majority.
4.3.6 On the positive side however, it was noted during this CHR Session that several of the annual reports of the thematic mechanisms of the UN mentioned Zimbabwe, so the reporting to these mechanisms was fruitful and will be given priority in 2005.
4.3.7 The Forum mission also included support for a Brazilian resolution on sexual orientation, a first in the UN system. Muparutsa spoke on several international NGO fringe meetings in favour of this resolution. However, the Brazilians withdrew it before it came to a vote, as it was increasingly clear that the resolution was not getting enough support to pass, and the Brazilians wanted to avoid a defeat during the vote.
4.3.8 After the initial failure at CHR the Forum then targeted the 3rd Committee during the UN General Assembly, where the EU countries had decided to table a resolution. The Forum sent Brian Kagoro, chairperson of the Crisis Coalition to the GA together with Tor-Hugne Olsen from IntLO.
4.3.9 The IntLO organised a meeting hosted by the Netherlands Mission in New York on 16 November 2004 addressed by Kagoro on the prevailing situation in Zimbabwe. This was the first time IntLO held a meeting in cooperation with a UN country mission. The meeting was reasonably well attended, particularly by State delegates to the 3rd Committee.
4.3.10 However, the African Block again succeeded in winning a no action motion on Zimbabwe as well as on other African countries proposed, including the Sudan.
4.3.11 The main conclusion drawn from these delegations was that more work needed to be done with individual countries before the meetings if success was to be obtained in the UN system and IntLO will after the election of new member states to the different UN ECOSOCC bodies in early May 2005 identify which ones to prioritize.
4.4 The Commonwealth
There was very little work directed at the Commonwealth during 2004 since Zimbabwe decided to leave the organization in December 2003.
However, many NGO partners working on the Commonwealth wished to work on Zimbabwe. IntLO therefore decided to contribute a speaker – Irene Petras – to a conference organised at the Commonwealth Institute in London on 31st March 2004 by the Commonwealth Human Rights Institute (CHRI) and others. However, during this conference, as well as during other communication with the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation, it was made clear that it would be very difficult for them to do anything on Zimbabwe.
Therefore, the Commonwealth work was reduced to keeping contacts with main NGO partners, in particular the CHRI, and observing the work of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on the Harare Declaration (CMAG).
5. Feed back to civil society in Zimbabwe.
5.1 IntLO, through its work, gained a lot of experience of international lobbying and was able to make a lot of contacts. A major challenge was to ensure that this experience was benefiting Zimbabwean civil society.
5.2 The IntLO’s main way of feeding back into Zimbabwe has previously been through participation at board meetings in Harare6. The IntLO coordinator visits Harare at least 3 times a year, where he in addition to participating in board meetings, also gives feed back to member organizations and get updated by the head office. During 2004 the coordinator visited Harare in February, May, July and September.
5.3 To try to both strengthen the input of civil society into international meetings, as well as to increase the knowledge of these meetings and to give organizations increased chance to influence the input into these meetings, the coordinator held preparatory meetings for the representatives selected for participation in lobbying delegations, while in Zimbabwe. These meetings focused on the ACHPR, the UN CHR and the ACP/EU JPA (see 4.1-4.3 above). These events were also open to the Forum’s member organizations. Two such meetings were held during 2004 – in February and September.
5.4 During trips to Harare the coordinator also tries to visit one of the provinces in addition to Harare to directly get an impression of the work of the human rights organizations outside of Harare and at the same time inform about the activities of the IntLO. During 2004 this was only possible once (Bulawayo – during the February visit) because of time constraints.
5.5 A less hectic feed back and planning session is also made during the Director’s annual visit to the IntLO. In 2004 this visit took place in September and was mainly focused on the NGO Bill, and planning around different scenarios of events in Harare.
5.6 During 2004 IntLO increasingly tried to involve actors from Zimbabwean civil society that are not among our members, where appropriate. IntLO was able to invite representatives of the Crisis Coalition (see 4.2.2 and 4.3.9), MISA Zimbabwe, ZUJ and NANGO (see 4.1.7) onto international delegations. Zimbabwe Election Support Network has also been approached to participate on several occasions but has not been able to send a representative.
6. Own activities, including marking of 26 June
6.1 26th June is the international day in support of torture victims. IntLO has marked this day as its main own initiated event since its inception. This tradition was followed in 2004.
6.2 A Church Service was held in St Martin’s in the Field, London, where torture victims gave testimonies. The Forum had both of the main victims of its latest political violence report speak7- student leader Tinashe Chimedza and MP Evelyne Masaiti – as well as one of the most famous human rights lawyers in Zimbabwe, Beatrice Mtetwa. The service was held parallel to a similar service at the Catholic Cathedral in Bulawayo. Through the Reverend of the Methodist Church in Derby, Ms Stemerick, a message was aired from the Arch Bishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube.
6.3 The service was followed by a procession to the Zimbabwean Embassy, where a demonstration was held.
6.4 The events were very moving and successful with around 300 persons attending the Church service and almost the same number in the procession.
7. Administrative issues
7.1 The IntLO is being hosted in London by the international NGO Article 19, which also provides other administrative support, including for accounting and office space.
7.2 During September 2004 Article 19 was forced to move out of their offices in Lancaster House at Angel. Their new offices are less spacious and the IntLO found alternative offices in an NGO House in Old Street. This house is allocated to NGOs by its owner – Ethical Properties Ltd. The House, later “baptized” Development House, fulfills all major needs of IntLO as it is particularly designed to meet NGO needs. It also houses new and different NGOs from those the IntLO had cooperated with in the past, mainly from the development sector, which is also potentially very useful.
7.3 During the year the IntLO was staffed by a coordinator and in addition, during parts of the year, by an administrator.
The staff were:
Coordinator:
1.1.-31.12.: Tor-Hugne Olsen
Administrator:
1.1.-29.2.: Forward Maisokwadzo
2.7.-31.12.: Khanyisela Moyo
2.12.-31.12.: Julius Mutyambizi
In addition Blessing Chimhini assisted during the difficult period in April and May.
Also during office relocation in September, volunteers, in particular Moses Ntanga, assisted.
The office also paid for computer services from different consultants.
7.4 A major challenge during 2004 was a major computer virus attack in April, which saw our whole hard disk erased. Most of the data was backed up. However our address lists were not and it took major parts of the work in the following months trying to recover these. In that process IntLO probably lost some addresses, but believe all major contacts were recovered.
7.5 Funding was the most challenging administrative task during 2004, particularly during the first quarter of the year. Since our initial funder stopped funding in late 2003, there were some months without any funding at all in the beginning of the year, in which the administrator had to leave, while the coordinator agreed to work without full salaries for a period of time.
7.6 However this situation was solved during May when funding was secured, with money entering the accounts in July 2004. The office was well funded at the end of the year.
7.7 Major figures for 2004:
Income
GGF £ 93.3108
GO Initiative £ 23.241
Other smaller funders, including OSI £ 9.922
Total income £126.473
Expenses
Office costs £32.924
Salaries £46.147
Travel IntLO £10.480
Funding of travel from Zimbabwe £ 7.435
Total expenditure £96.986
Left to cover 2005 Jan-March expenses: £29.987
HARARE / LONDON
July 2005
Eileen Sawyer Tor-Hugne Olsen
Director Coordinator